ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-pednr-dt]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-pednr-dt] Comments of draft final report

  • To: PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments of draft final report
  • From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 01:14:04 -0400


All of the comments relate to the section on recommendations.

Overall they look really good. I thought we had decided to re-order them. Is that still to come on the next pass, or did I miss that we are keeping the order?

At one point, we said we would include a line about there being no need to synchronize implementation of all Recs. We know that some will take longer and don't want to delay all for the slowest one. How do we handle this in light of our statement that they are all inter-related?

Line 1201: I would replace "would like to put forward" just "puts forward".

Line 1212: It is unclear who we will provide feed back to on implementation issues. The statement in this line is silent on it, but the next sentence talks about advice to the GNSO Council. I would have thought we would deal directly with staff. Going through the GNSO Council (which almost implies that they would have to vote on it) seems rather awkward.

Line 1255: Current reads "... and the domain must be renewable by the RNHAE until the end of that period." Should we word it to say at LEAST until the end. If we do not , it may be read as requiring that it not be renewable after and that should be the registrars call, not ours. Also note that the A in RNHAE is upper case.

Line 1258: The reference to restoring to the original DNS resolution path. I vaguely recal that one of the comments said we should define what we mean by original.

Line 1264: I would change "most" to "more".

Lines 1276/7: This sentence should eitherbe deleted or changed to advice to the implementors.

Line 1387: "name" should be "Name".

Lines 1391/2: Need to be deleted since we decided on no exceptions.

Lines 1412/3: Do we need to add "or is renewed by the RNHaE"?

Unrelated to all of this, when we were talking about details for the RGP implementation, Marika pointed us to words in the new gTLD draft contract that says a specific RFP applies if the registry implements the "Registry Grace Period (RGP)". Perhaps someone needs to tell the new gTLD folks that it is "Redemption" not "Registry".

Alan




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy